Doc, if you lower deductions, and change the rules, what makes you so sure that the rich and their snazzy accountants won't find loopholes as well? It's easy to say 'close the loopholes', but I rarely see any understanding what the loopholes are and how to close them up, Most are far from easy to simply remove with a quick bit of law. Simple solutions to complex problems rarely work.

And you make the same dumb argument again that is against a complete straw man:

Doctor Repeato wrote:if you take all wealth from the rich--all of it--it would not solve the problem.

Who has said that we should take all wealth since the last time you mentioned an argument against it? No-one.

A small increase to the amount that the rich pay will not actually kill loads of jobs (mind you, spending cuts will kill jobs, so if you cut government jobs, where do the new ones come from?), as the rich tend to have much greater discretionary income than anyone else, and so can absorb a drop in income more readily than the lower and middle income groups.

Also, cutting spending too quickly will also risk hindering growth, which would reduce tax income projections, making the deficit harder to deal with. Recovery is the key to dealing with the deficit. Some cuts are clearly needed, but modest tax rises can also play a part in reducing the deficit.

Even so, the basic point that George raises is more important for the long term (and also when we're talking about how to deal with a situation where some of the rich are able to get out of contributing but everyone else has to contribute to the costs of the debt and deficit).

danivon wrote:Doc, if you lower deductions, and change the rules, what makes you so sure that the rich and their snazzy accountants won't find loopholes as well? It's easy to say 'close the loopholes', but I rarely see any understanding what the loopholes are and how to close them up, Most are far from easy to simply remove with a quick bit of law. Simple solutions to complex problems rarely work.

Again, I apologize for not using simple enough language. Reduce the types of allowable deductions and you will increase the revenues the government receives without increasing the tax rate. Is that simple enough?

And you make the same dumb argument again that is against a complete straw man:

Doctor Factual wrote:if you take all wealth from the rich--all of it--it would not solve the problem.

Who has said that we should take all wealth since the last time you mentioned an argument against it? No-one.

Again, let me use simple words: liberals like to pretend our economic problems are caused by a failure to tax the rich enough. That is not true. To display the absurdity of that, I point to the notion of taking all of their money not being enough.

A small increase to the amount that the rich pay will not actually kill loads of jobs (mind you, spending cuts will kill jobs, so if you cut government jobs, where do the new ones come from?), as the rich tend to have much greater discretionary income than anyone else, and so can absorb a drop in income more readily than the lower and middle income groups.

Spending cuts need not kill jobs. For example, if we reduce the subsidies for college loans, how many jobs get killed?

Furthermore, how much money should we continue to borrow for the paltry return on investment of government jobs? What will the long-term consequences be?

Doctor Fate wrote:Again, let me use simple words: liberals like to pretend our economic problems are caused by a failure to tax the rich enough. That is not true. To display the absurdity of that, I point to the notion of taking all of their money not being enough.

Right, let's just assume that fringe positions on the left are in fact accepted mainstream opinion and political dogma, but cry and whine when the left makes the same assumption about right wing positions.
What the left is saying it's a bad devolpment when the super rich get more numerous and richer individually while sucking on the teat of the taxpay, either via subsidies, direct interventions, taking risks the taxpayer has to underwright in the end or tax lobbying. Just because you see Communists hiding everywhere doesn't make it so.

Doctor Fate wrote:Spending cuts need not kill jobs. For example, if we reduce the subsidies for college loans, how many jobs get killed?

Yeah i'm sure you'll get to save billions that way, while building 2 Aircraft carriers no one needs.

Doctor Fate wrote:Furthermore, how much money should we continue to borrow for the paltry return on investment of government jobs? What will the long-term consequences be?

See you can't be for the war on terror, war on drugs, hard on crime stuff that soaks up billions upon billions and creates more crime, red tape and government jobs while decrying the bloated governmental sector jobs, because you dislike teachers.
There's a very simple logic to it really. If the right gets to finance it's hobby horse causes via governmental spending so does the other side.
If it's your intention to shrink the government sector you'll have to give up some of the stuff you like in order to get rid of stuff you don't.
It's called compromise, but i'm pretty sure types like you and your brethren on the left will be able to paralyze and kill any debate were adults try to find some common ground.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Doc, if you lower deductions, and change the rules, what makes you so sure that the rich and their snazzy accountants won't find loopholes as well? It's easy to say 'close the loopholes', but I rarely see any understanding what the loopholes are and how to close them up, Most are far from easy to simply remove with a quick bit of law. Simple solutions to complex problems rarely work.

Again, I apologize for not using simple enough language. Reduce the types of allowable deductions and you will increase the revenues the government receives without increasing the tax rate. Is that simple enough?

It's still too simple, Steve. I'm saying that the loopholes are not going to go away due to changing the deductions, every change to the system will introduce new ones (or reintroduce old ones), and if the effect it to increase the tax rate then the impetus to exploit loopholes will be the same as if the rate itself were increased.

And you make the same dumb argument again that is against a complete straw man:

Doctor Factual wrote:if you take all wealth from the rich--all of it--it would not solve the problem.

Who has said that we should take all wealth since the last time you mentioned an argument against it? No-one.

Again, let me use simple words: liberals like to pretend our economic problems are caused by a failure to tax the rich enough. That is not true. To display the absurdity of that, I point to the notion of taking all of their money not being enough.

No, that's not the cause of the economic problems. They were caused by a housing bubble which popped due to rising commodity prices and fear of a slow down,

Some conservatives think that taxing people too much is a cause of many problems. We could 'display the absurdity of that' by wittering on about how not collecting any taxes at all would mean that the nation would cease to be able to defend itself, but if we did, we'd be arguing against a straw man (or a nutbar libertarian). Now that it's established that not one single person on here is advocating 100% tax on all the assets and income of the rich, perhaps you'd condescend to arguing with the actual positions as expressed?

So, when I say "Some cuts are clearly needed, but modest tax rises can also play a part in reducing the deficit.", can you point out the 'absurdity' there without resort to straw men?

Spending cuts need not kill jobs. For example, if we reduce the subsidies for college loans, how many jobs get killed?

Well, if you reduce the subsidies, there are two possible effects:

1) fewer people go to college, reducing the demand for employment at colleges, costing jobs
2) as many go, but they end up with higher debts. when they leave college, they have less disposable income as a result, and so are creating less demand for goods and services, costing jobs

Furthermore, how much money should we continue to borrow for the paltry return on investment of government jobs? What will the long-term consequences be?

I see you don't read Keynes then (even though you are keen to tell us what you know he means).

Of course, you omit to mention that I talked about some cuts taking place, and that if you increase the tax revenues, that has the same effect on the budget deficit as a reduction in spending. I would argue that it's prudent to do both, seeing as tax revenues are historically low at the moment. You are arguing for one only.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:Considering that the wealthiest now pay some of the lowest percentages of their income when compared to other taxpayers, that's a good thing! You shouldn't be paying X% of your annual income if Warren Buffet is paying something less than X%. Either you should pay less, or Buffet should pay more.

Beyond that, if you raise taxes now, where do the jobs come from? How many people will the middle and lower classes hire? How many businesses will they start

*Sigh*. The answer is most of them.

I am reminded of my favorite movie Crimes & Misdemeanors. There is a fantastic scene where the protagonist is imagining a scene from his childhood. It is Passover and the characters are arguing over their faith during the family's Seder and someone says, "Saul's faith is a gift, a like an ear for music; you can throw all the facts you want at him, but he will still believe." An uncle asks, “And if all your faith is wrong, Saul, I mean just what if?” The father answers, “Then I’ll still have a better life than all those that doubt.” The aunt asks, “Do you mean that you prefer God to the truth?” The father responds, “If necessary I will always choose God over truth.”

Certainly, Steve's faith in this political dogma is strong.

Faxmonkey wrote:What the left is saying it's a bad devolpment when the super rich get more numerous and richer individually while sucking on the teat of the taxpay, either via subsidies, direct interventions, taking risks the taxpayer has to underwright in the end or tax lobbying.

And, the answer is to simply raise rates? First, that is a political impossibility. Second, the higher rates go, the more money will be sitting on the sideline. The way to get the money off the sideline is to provide certainty--a certainty other than that the government will take whatever profits are made.

Just because you see Communists hiding everywhere doesn't make it so.

Didn't say that. However, there are socialists all around Obama and that's not an accident.

Yeah i'm sure you'll get to save billions that way, while building 2 Aircraft carriers no one needs.

But, the point is that liberals/socialists say nothing can be cut except the military and that taxes must be raised. This goes in the face of a doubling of the federal budget over the last 10 years. It also ignores the TENS of TRILLIONS of dollars in unfunded liabilities from entitlement programs.

Why do liberals think these things aren't a problem? The Senate Majority Leader has said many times that Social Security is not a problem. The President proposed cutting half a trillion from Medicare, then spending it, and pretending like he'd saved the money. They have become the masters of Neo-Voodoo Economics. Don't look too hard because it makes no sense--spend more than ever, but pretend that it's free.

See you can't be for the war on terror, war on drugs, hard on crime stuff that soaks up billions upon billions and creates more crime, red tape and government jobs while decrying the bloated governmental sector jobs, because you dislike teachers.

I don't dislike teachers. There is no reason for the Federal government to pump billions into loan guarantees.

The more money the government pumps into college education, the higher the costs will go. More dollars chasing the same openings equals higher costs.

What will those kids do? Junior college? Work?

Hint: a lot of kids should not go to college. They're not academically suited, but just don't know what to do with their lives. College is not a birthright, nor is it something that benefits everyone.

It's called compromise, but i'm pretty sure types like you and your brethren on the left will be able to paralyze and kill any debate were adults try to find some common ground.

There is precious little the Left wants to cut. If it's not the military, they're really not interested.

danivon wrote:It's still too simple, Steve. I'm saying that the loopholes are not going to go away due to changing the deductions, every change to the system will introduce new ones (or reintroduce old ones), and if the effect it to increase the tax rate then the impetus to exploit loopholes will be the same as if the rate itself were increased.

Congratulations. Based on your argumentation, there is no way for the Government to increase its revenues.

So, when I say "Some cuts are clearly needed, but modest tax rises can also play a part in reducing the deficit.", can you point out the 'absurdity' there without resort to straw men?

Sure. Obama has increased discretionary spending by 84% in two years. Our budget has doubled over the last ten years.

There are all manner of spending cuts that could easily be made. Instead, the President wants to raise taxes and maintain spending.

Spending cuts need not kill jobs. For example, if we reduce the subsidies for college loans, how many jobs get killed?

Well, if you reduce the subsidies, there are two possible effects:

1) fewer people go to college, reducing the demand for employment at colleges, costing jobs
2) as many go, but they end up with higher debts. when they leave college, they have less disposable income as a result, and so are creating less demand for goods and services, costing jobs

(1) is partly true. Fewer will go to college, at least at the university level. That won't cost jobs--except maybe the odd counselor or food server.

(2) Most leave with absurd debts as it is. People don't plan for college, don't consider the costs and impacts before they go, and the government is responsible for that? Rubbish.

Furthermore, how much money should we continue to borrow for the paltry return on investment of government jobs? What will the long-term consequences be?

I see you don't read Keynes then (even though you are keen to tell us what you know he means).

I see you don't read Standard and Poors or know what it means.

geojanes wrote:Certainly, Steve's faith in this political dogma is strong.

It's not me, it's you.

I'm reminded of one of my favorite movies, "The Purple Rose of Cairo." Mia Farrow plays a housewife with an abusive and drunken husband. She escapes to the cinema. Eventually, Jeff Daneils leaves the movie screen and joins her. In the same way, liberals expect the government to solve every problem of life.

You believe (apparently) that the government is spending its money well and that nothing can be cut from the budget. I believe there is a ton of spending that needs to go before we lose our capacity to pay our bills.

Are Obama's policies working? Gas prices? Inflation (when you include fuel and food)? GDP (1.8%)? Unemployment? Wrong track/right track? Deficit? Debt? From today's AP

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More people sought unemployment benefits last week, the second rise in three weeks, a sign the job market's recovery is slow and uneven.

Applications for unemployment benefits jumped 25,000 to a seasonally adjusted 429,000 for the week ending April 23, the Labor Department said Thursday. That's the highest total since late January.

The four-week average of applications, a less volatile measure, rose to 408,500, its third straight rise and the first time it has topped 400,000 in two months.

Applications near 375,000 are consistent with sustained job creation. Applications peaked during the recession at 659,000.

Some economists predicted that auto factory shutdowns, stemming from supply disruptions in Japan, would cause applications to rise. But a Labor Department analyst said only one state reported auto-related layoffs and the increase was modest.

Economic growth slowed sharply in the first three months of the year, according to a separate report Thursday from the Commerce Department. The nation's economic output grew at a 1.8 percent annual rate in the January-March quarter, a much weaker pace that the 3.1 percent growth recorded in the October-December period.

The solution for liberals, like you, is "full speed ahead!" That's not what the voters will be saying.

Actually, I'm wrong. We don't spend enough and taxes need to be 99% on the rich.

I apologize.

Fact: Republicans in the House and Senate unanimously voted against raising the debt limit last year.

Fact: House Republicans have the power to stop the deficit spending now by voting against increasing the debt limit. They don't need the President. They don't need the Senate. They don't need to compromise with the Democrats. All they have to do is exactly what they did last year and the deficit will end.

Prediction: House Republicans will vote to increase the debt limit, and claim that they "got something" from the Democrats for "compromising".

Question: Why will the Republicans vote to approve this debt increase, but vote against the previous one? And what does this say about their fiscal conservatism?

Doctor Fate wrote:You believe (apparently) that the government is spending its money well and that nothing can be cut from the budget. I believe there is a ton of spending that needs to go before we lose our capacity to pay our bills. [snip]

The solution for liberals, like you, is "full speed ahead!" That's not what the voters will be saying.

Where, ever, did I say anything that suggested this is what I believe? For the record, I don't believe the Federal gov't spends its money well and that there is a huge amount that can and should be cut from federal spending.

But why must you put words in my mouth? Why must you paint your "enemies" with such a broad brush, and harsh tone? You're a good guy, I'm sure people like you in person, yet you come across on these boards as having some very sharp edges.

After years of sharing these boards with you, I have come to believe the fundamental difference between us: I think the world is a very complicated place and you see it as a simple one. I believe there are very few black and white issues; there are shades of gray all over the place. It's far too complicated to even make up a party line, let alone follow one. You see the world as a fight between good and evil, you see black and white all over the place and gray is not visible. It is easier to live in your world, everything is much easier to understand, and there is always "us" and "them," and there are always clear answers to even difficult questions. I understand the appeal, but this is not my reality. In my world, there are rarely clear answers to difficult questions. My reality is far more complicated, nuanced and I would argue, interesting. Does that make me liberal? I don't think so, but apparently, in your world, it does. It's fascinating.

theodorelogan wrote:Fact: Republicans in the House and Senate unanimously voted against raising the debt limit last year.

So did Senator Obama, back when Bush was president.

Prediction: House Republicans will vote to increase the debt limit, and claim that they "got something" from the Democrats for "compromising".

Agreed

Question: Why will the Republicans vote to approve this debt increase, but vote against the previous one? And what does this say about their fiscal conservatism?

Because this vote matters, whereas the previous one, and the one Obama voted against was political theater. I do believe that most congressmen are adults and will realize that is important. The thought that by not voting to increase the debt ceiling would somehow impact the obligations the gov't is just not logical. What it does is create a default because you're limiting the money coming in and not doing anything about the money going out. US gov't default would make the financial crisis of 2008 seem like a walk in the park.

US government default is coming...the only question is when.

But not increasing the debt ceiling is not the same as defaulting. Just because you decide you are not going to go more into debt doesn't mean you are defaulting on your debt. It just means starting to make the hard choices about where to cut spending now rather than in the 5-10-15 years from now when politicians always say that we will get our financial house in order (but that never actually arrives).

US gov't default would make the financial crisis of 2008 seem like a walk in the park

Better to get it over with now then to drag it out a few (and I do mean few) more years. At least then the Feds will be forced to live within their means.

First off,

Vince! Welcome back! Hope all is well.

Secondly, the republicans were just grandstanding last year if they vote this year to increase the limit. They didn't believe it, they just wanted others to believe it.

Prediction: The republicans will pound their chest, and say how brave they were, while not achieving anything. Reminds me of how Sam Elliot's character felt in the movie Gettysburg (1993)

"Meade will come in slowly, cautiously, new to command... And then, after Lee's army is entrenched behind nice fat rocks, Meade will attack finally, if he can coordinate the army. He'll attack right up that rocky slope, and up that gorgeous field of fire. And we will charge valiantly, and be butchered valiantly. And afterwards men in tall hats and gold watch fobs will thump their chest and say what a brave charge it was. Devin, I've led a soldier's life, and I've never seen anything as brutally clear as this"

The government can drastically cut now, or more drastically cut later.

theodorelogan wrote:But not increasing the debt ceiling is not the same as defaulting. Just because you decide you are not going to go more into debt doesn't mean you are defaulting on your debt. It just means starting to make the hard choices about where to cut spending now rather than in the 5-10-15 years from now when politicians always say that we will get our financial house in order (but that never actually arrives).

If you don't do anything about limiting the obligations of the gov't, and you limit the amount the gov't takes in, you end up with a situation where the gov't doesn't have money to pay obligations. That's default. That's what the word means. So, a vote to not increase the debt ceiling, without corresponding decreases in spending and/or increases in income, is a vote for the gov't to default. Responsible grown-ups, in life, or in gov't don't do that, and most people in congress are reasonably responsible grown-ups, thank goodness.